Opinions Needed- Headed back to 6 x 6 from digital

[gary_conrad1]

<p>Digital smigital. I really believe that I was a better photographer before digital. Nine shots to a roll, taking my time, etc. etc. I have missed 6 x 6 and 6 x 9 for years but have never used a Hasselblad. I am headed to Maui next week and really have the urge to pick up a 500cm-501cm with one lens and make that work for the week. I really enjoy a sharp 20 x 30 print, and think this might be the way to get going again. Has anyone else felt this way and/or go back to film?</p>

[Uncle Goose]

<p>Yeah, Some years ago I started to use digital too but I was never statisfied with the results. It felt all to flimsy and the lack of a negative bothered me. So I jumped back on the film train and never looked back. Even nowaydays when I have to use digital (not often anymore since I finished photoschool) I always feel it's not the best tool to use.</p>

<p>Welcome back to the Dark Side :).</p>

[steve_parrott]

LOTS of people are doing this. I personally last year sold my Canon 1Ds and 3 L lenses, put the money into my Mamiya medium format

camera and 3 lenses, and even had money left over to put in the bank. I have never been happier again with my photography. Using film

again I feel like I am CREATING something, whereas with digital I never felt more than a participient in an electronic video game. It is

amazing how when you only have a few shots on a roll and that each time you press the shutter it costs you MONEY it makes you WORK at

creating the best shot you can. With digital it is far too easy to fall into the monkey syndrome of just taking scores of shots with no real effort

toward composition or exposure, then delete 3/4 of them later in the computer. Plus, I love having a real, tangible negative for archive

purposes instead of "files" on a CD that will certainly become obsolete.<p>I do believe you will find that the people who leave digital and go

back to film are the people who used and were proficient with film in the past. I doubt any "youngsters" who have never had any real

experience with film will ever leave their digital cameras.<p>Right now I am just holding my breath waiting until I can get my hands on the

Kodak Ektar 120 film when released in April.<p>Happy FILM shooting, you are NOT alone and more are returning to the ART of photography

everyday.

[steve_ql]

<p>I was always 35mm, but couldn't afford a Hasselblad. With digital so popular, marvelous (Hasselblad) equipment can be had for dirt cheap.<br>

16x20 prints from a cropped square look fantastic from 400VC film. And such beautiful colors (I could never really match those Kodak color palettes with digital & photoshop)! I was really wishing for the Kodak Ultracolor in 120 (a favorite in 35mm), so I was ecstatic when Kodak announced its release in 120 this spring.</p>

[Gary Naka]

<p>I shoot digital, but many times want to pull out my 35mm camera.<br /> I recently got a 6x6 outfit and in a year or 2 plan to get a 4x5 view camera :-) <br /> I feel that film slows me down, so I think harder about the shot BEFORE I press the shutter.</p>

<p>But maybe it is like Steve said, I was a decent film shooter and also used to do B&W darkroom work, so I am not intimidated by film. The one thing I do like about digital is instant results. Some shots on film I had no idea how they would turn out until I got them back from the lab, so I would bracket like crazy, and that was a LOT of extra film.</p>

<p>The other thing about digital is less hassle going through US airport security. I took some 120 to Hawaii, and TSA at SFO opened the film boxes and also the sealed film envelope, to verify that it was a roll of film inside. <br /> When you take your film, take it in a CLEAR plastic bag, and hand that to the TSA security for a HAND inspection. Don't let them BS you into putting it through the X-Ray. It was a PiA for photogs when they started using X-Ray inspection in the 70s, and it only got worse after 9/11. It is just this reason that I take digital on vacations or any plane trips.</p>

[galileo42]

<p>I am going back to b&w film shooting and processing because I don't like the look of digital images converted to b&w. I have this lovely Rolleiflex 2.8F which is seeing action again, and I bought myself a Nikon F6. My idea was to keep digital for color and film for b&w, but I tried a roll of the new Kodak Ektar 100, and now I'm also rediscovering the look of color film, and it is great. I will not ditch digital, which I find convenient and sometimes spectacular, but film is slowly and surely growing on me again. Now, I'm contemplating this solid Hasselblad kit a friend offered me for sale a while ago.</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>I shoot B&W so shooting digital was never an option. Even when we lived on the Big Island I shot B&W, which was a little weird but it worked. My one experiment w/ a Nikon D50 was that it was a great camera to use, but I got not one keeper from it. Now I'm going from printing my scanned negs on inkjets to setting up my first darkroom. Oh boy! I fully expect the work to take a leap forward once I sort all the bugs out. Actually, shooting 6x6 steered me toward shooting 4x5 and 5x7. I agree w/ you Gary that 9 or 12 or 15 shots on a roll is actually going to produce as many keepers, or more, as a roll of 36. You become more selective and wait for the good shots.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I shoot Hasselblad H digital for my paid pro work, and V system film for personal work. I much prefer working with the simplicity that film gives me, but the timeframe required for assignments doesn't allow for film processing, conversion, post processing, etc. For my personal work, I now shoot about 80% film from only about 20% a year or so ago.</p>

[ilkka]

<p>I made it a new year resolution to do at least one trip a month using only Hasselblad 500CM with 80 and shooting film. The rest of the trips I use whatever I did before, digital or panorama or both. I started with black and white (Korea) but then brought slide film as well (Thailand) and will do the same next week in China and next month in Australia. I prefer to use digital in countries or trips where I have to pass through several airports. With the 500CM I sure miss some shots, but that does not matter. It is more contemplative and makes great images.</p>

[rick_donnelly]

<p> Digital certainly has its place, but I have to agree that classic medium format film cameras can engender a sense of artistic satisfaction like no other photographic instrument. When I want real creative involvement with a subject, I pick up the Hasselblad or the Rolleiflex.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I doubt any "youngsters" who have never had any real experience with film will ever leave their digital cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You may be pleasantly surprised. I have encountered a few youngsters who have discovered film and are sticking with it.</p>

[dennismcarbo]

<p>I started my business with Digital and over the past year "Upgraded" to Film with A Rollei 6008i, Speed Graphics and Graphic View II...My photography has improved Ten-Fold and I argree with Steve Parrotts comments 100%</p>

<p>ViVa la Velvia</p>

<p>Dennis</p>

[john romano]

<p>Interesting.</p>

<p>Back in the late 1980's, Canon came out with the first autofocus SLR. I purchased one immediately to photograph my daughter's birthday party. I remember shooting about six rolls that day, and never got one good photo. The problem was not the camera; it was me. It was too easy to hit the release. As a result, I realized very quickly that, for me, I really needed to slow down, and be patient to get the shot.</p>

<p>It's nice to have digital, and it certainly fulfills a purpose for many photographers. No question. It's different, and offers a lot. It's great to have the many choices we have. However, one must use what works for him/her.</p>

<p>As for me, I still shoot with film (35mm, 6x6, 4x5). It forces me to slow down and think, and make the right shot. Plus, I mainly shoot B&W. The dynamic range is beautiful, and some of the tools that have been made available in the last 10-15 years are awesome, like Phil Davis's research and tools in densitometry, and the software ExpoDev which works on a Palm (like BTZS - check www.viewcamerastore.com).</p>

[john romano]

<p>Bravo, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=525002">Steve Parrott</a>!</p>

<p>Especially the last line:</p>

<p>"Happy FILM shooting, you are NOT alone and more are returning to the ART of photography everyday."</p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>I think you need to make one image at a time no matter if you're using a film or digital camera. After using film for over 40 years... I've found myself making more and better images with a digital camera.</p>

<p>If you're looking at the equipment and process to help you make images...that's not the way to interesting photographs. You choose the equipment (tools) as required for your personal vision.</p>

<p>No matter what your workflow may be - YOU have to see the image. A film workflow won't help you see things anymore than a digital workflow. Many people substitute using equipment for seeing... if that helps you fine..but, at that point I'd suggest going directly to a view camera. Use a view camera for everything for about 15 years...or, learn to approach every shot as one at a time.</p>

<p>If you make every image one at a time - it doesn't matter which workflow you use.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I still shoot digital but much prefer film. The colours of Velvia cannot be matched by digital in my experience (until the new D3X the 5DII was pop photo's best result for colour and it does not get close to the Fuji GX680 III with Velvia). There is definately a benefit to taking your time. It is really an attitude thing. The fact you can take countless shots with digital plus the fact that most often you use zoom lenses and therefore don't walk around to frame the shot are the root of the problem. I noticed when I gave the kids a film camera (old A1) and three fixed focus lenses the quality of their photography improved massively over the DSLR shots they were taking. Don't get me wrong digital has lots of advantages and I often take my 5DII with me when I shoot with the Fuji. It is conveneient and I have found that it makes a pretty good lightmeter. Indeed I find that I often get better results using the 5DII as a lightmeter than I do with a handheld lightmeter as using the Digital's AEB feature i can find the settings that I like for the Fuji.</p>

<p>By the way you may want to think about the auggestion of LF. I went from the Mamiya RZ67 to the Fuji for the lens movement and better quality glass (I still have Mamiya 645s for portability).</p>

[danielheller]

<p>It really depends on how you want to preserve your work. "Digital" shooters will have their work saved in electronic form on CDs, hard drives, and mirror sites. "Film" shooters will always have their negative which is archival as Steve Parrott noted above. Film shooters can also bring their best, or all of their work into the digital world by scanning. Therefore, unless you mainly shoot only commercial and need the output very very fast, FILM has the edge.</p>

[enw]

<p>When the digital "thing" happened, I tried it. Since I had a rather extensive Nikon system, I naturally stayed with Nikon. I started with a D70S, then a D200 and now I have a D700 full frame. The problem is, I don't enjoy digital.<br /> <br /> I wasn't attracted to photography because I enjoyed sitting in front of my computer. And I think there is a real difference between a photographer creating a photograph and a photographic technician creating a graphic image in Photo Shop. I know that will offend some people, but I don't mean it to. I've seen some striking images since the onset of the digital photography age and they are outstanding pieces of art. But to me, that's not photography. They may have started with a photographic image, but somewhere the photograph was lost and a computer generated graphic image was the end product. That's certainly not true for all digital images, but it is a path that many follow.<br /> <br /> So I decided to go back to what attracted me to photography in the first place. The simple joy of a relatively simple camera and <em>the image that is created is the result of that individual's skill at the moment of image creation</em> . A negative and a wet darkroom, an appreciation for tradition; no "fixing" it in Photo Shop. I like that.<br>

So I’ve gone in two different directions. I invested in a Leica and a couple of lenses just for fun, to stir the spirit, to recapture the real feeling of photography. I also now shoot extensively with my Hasselblads. I love the large 6x6 negative. I am a better photographer now that I've returned to film and, just as importantly, I enjoy it more.<br /> <br /> I disagree with those that say a camera is a camera; that tools don't matter. I understand what they are saying, but I find that I <em>do</em> have an appreciation for the tools and, for me, they <em>do</em> matter. To me, the process of image creation is very enjoyable. I enjoy working with my Leica and Hasselblads because they are wonderfully designed and constructed. Working with such fine equipment is an enjoyable part of the process. It's not the end image that solely matters, but the journey as well.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Having grownup with the old Brownies,I never found meduim format that difficult and was easy and natural. About 39 years ago, I bought a Mamiya 500DTL. Found the format too small.Sold it, bought a Mamiya C330 and a 4x5 view camera. The Brownies taught me about roll film, the 500DTL about aperature and shutter speeds. So,had no trouble with learning the TLR's. (I guess those that find MF intimidating are those that are younger.) Learned the view camera as much as I needed.<br>

It's not just the taking the photos that is fun, but, the steps involved in the process. Film is more hands on, digital, pressing several buttons on the camera and the computer. So, have no interest in digital.</p>

[photo_smith]

<p>I like using both film and digital, I don't think using film makes me a better photographer but i tend to use the two in a slightly different way. Using the digital is great for fast review, its like a drug very hard to resist looking at the camera LCD yet it seems to distract me I certainly make better images when I turn of the LCD or tape over it.<br>

I'm sure not everyone would agree, but i don't want to be the slave of a CE device-thats just me.<br>

I would disagree that 'the camera doesn't matter' I feel it does even within the same subset of devices comfort and well designed/made equipment helps me take better images.<br>

Last year I sold my 5D and 20D and bought a Rolleiflex and a D2x, i use the Rollei for nearly all my personal stuff, I enjoy composing through the square VF. The digital is used for work that needs fast turnaround and I like to use my MF lenses from my F2.<br>

I have realised after about 6 years of doing almost totally digital that I like film, both the look and feel. I wouldn't say it is superior, or makes for better pictures.<br>

I just prefer it.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I disagree with those that say a camera is a camera; that tools don't matter. I understand what they are saying, but I find that I <em>do</em> have an appreciation for the tools and, for me, they <em>do</em> matter.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. Try telling a fine carpenter that the tools don't matter.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I used to tote around different backs with different speed films. Every time I think of shooting more film I immediately think of how spoiled I am to get great color indoor shots without flash, then switch iso and get great natural outdoor shots. I look at the result on the print and all in all I don't miss film. But for anyone who film is more comfortable, fantastic, shoot film.</p>

<p>I slow down just as much with digital, take just as much care, this is a mindset and discipline, you don't have to let the camera control that. Except for bird photography I am never out of one shot mode. I actually shoot fewer frames as I can look at the results and not have to bracket. </p>

<p>However, what I do greatly miss is the 6 x 6 format, and looking down on a nice sized ground glass with a chimney finder instead of peering through a little hole looking at a little image on a squished format's focusing screen. To me that's a huge advantage of medium format, so much so I'm contemplating going to a Hasselblad digital system. <br>

</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>I was never a fan of the square format. That said, I much prefer the look of film over the DSLR I got and have seen from others. It's more than just resolution. After spending years with multiple DSLRs photographing weddings, etc, I decided for my personal work I'd go back to film. The funny thing was posting a thread at DPReview on that. The response was overwhelmingly positive (except for a couple of trolls).</p>

<p>Yes....welcome back to the art of photography!</p>

[bengt_ljungkvist1]

<p>Eric,<br>

I agree with your description of your feelings for the tools and their part in the creative process. Using my daghter´s Nikon D80 I am not quite at a loss with digital photography, but working with B&W in the darkroom, knowing that the "ultimate picture" may emanate because your Hasselblad makes it technically possible, is a very fullfilling feeling! </p>

[cj8281]

<p>I bought a digital camera last year, a Nikon D40, and i really like it. I still find that I shoot more with my film cameras. I built a darkroom and process and print my own. I like contact printing my 120s, 12 pictures on one sheet of paper! Easy. I like the digital for the instant look at the picture and then i have a good idea of what i should expect on my film cameras. I love the looks from people when i am consulting my light meter for the exposure. TLRs are great fun to shoot. I do shoot quite a bit of 35mm, about 60-80% b&w on 35mm and 100% b&w in 120 and 127. Ok some of you might not consider the 127 a medium format, but it is a bit bigger than 35mm. I have never left film and i don't plan too. I do shoot digital but i have more fun in film.</p>